+ 0 +/0 Plus zero Plus within a zero

[Houndog]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't AODDS in the BRIS download have desiginations in the paceline screen for Good (G), BAD (B) and Ugly (U).

Or was that a Clint Eastwood movie?

[shoeless]

In my opinion any override from what you
or equibase comes up with is all well and good but Is a Sartin Methodology
program really suppose to have someone else make pace line decisions for you ?
I think an override system is overkill



Bill,Excellent point

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

In my opinion any override from what you
or equibase comes up with is all well and good but Is a Sartin Methodology
program really suppose to have someone else make pace line decisions for you ?
I think an override system is overkill

Bill

If there ends up being a Form designation column for each paceline, by default it would likely be user supplied (like Projected Pace and Running Styles are now user supplied). You could override that default setting (e.g. in the Configure Window), by asking the software to supply initial values.

Same with Projected Pace and Running Styles - what exists now would continue to be the default (i.e. you supply it), but you could override that and ask the software to come up with something initially (which you could then tweak if you don't like everything it comes up with).

Similarly colour for rankings - by default, colour is used (i.e. red, green, yellow). You can override that now and choose no colour.

You can override the default DTV and ITV settings, the use of Powerline and Powermove and Layoff markups. You can override the default mode of some calculations (formerly known as Spec160 mode) and use Validator mode instead.

There will be an automated paceline selection strategy (several of them, actually) and you can request the software to select an initial paceline set for you if you like. By default this will be switched off, but you can override that (i.e. switch it on).

You'll be able to hide half the existing screens, if you like, or choose from a bunch of new ones.

Flexibility, but not imposed.

In keeping with my understanding of the Sartin Methodology - the user makes the decisions - the software enables the user. RDSS should help new folks to learn the Methodology, then enable users to efficiently apply the concepts by permitting the software do as much grunt work as they desire (and of which it is capable...), but not more.

I think we're on the same page, Bill But, I'll wager, not 1 person in 20 would make use of your manually applied + O (+) Form assessment notation. Some folks want to work 70 races a day; some just one card.

Again, let's see what I can do. (And BTW, Equibase has nothing to do with it).

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Houndog

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't AODDS in the BRIS download have desiginations in the paceline screen for Good (G), BAD (B) and Ugly (U).

Or was that a Clint Eastwood movie?

Mike, that Aodds thing sounds familiar!

But in permitting the software to make those designations for you, "you got to ask yourself one question: Do ya feel lucky? Well, do ya...?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-oinyjsk0



Ted

[Ted Craven]

I notice a strong co-relation between + races and finish positions having colour (1st, 2nd 3rd). Is there any scenario where a horse finishes in the money where the line should not be considered a 'good line'? Is there any scenario where the horse finishes worse than 3rd where the line should still be considered 'good'? For example: Bank of Dad's 7th line, finished 4th but a bit closer than his good 6th line where he finished 3rd (and against a faster pace than his good 8th line). I think the 7th line could probably be considered as 'good' Sometimes (and often in Turf routes) a herd of horses finish within a few lengths of each other - the distance between 3rd and 5th sometimes being only a length.

What about (+) lines (good within bad). What are a collection of scenarios for this? How about:
- finish out of the money but in the top half of field + 1
- colour in any 2 non-finish positions
- showed a Powermove markup up to the Stretch call where it was in the top half of field + 1

Bad lines. Is this everything else, except for lines where the horse clearly had no hope of demonstrating what form it may have had (e.g. clear trouble such as poor start, bumps, forced wide, etc) or a surface it clearly hates or an obviously irrelevant class maneuver (quick raise after claim, way too high conditions)?

Here's where I'm going with this: if good lines show colour at the finish, and good within bad lines show colour or some kind of markup within the race (e.g. some kind of new colour or marking for such out of money finishes), and excusable or bad lines are everything else (e.g. no colour, no markings), is this an alternate (or, nearly existing) way of portraying the horse's form cycles over its history?

In my philosophy of software user-interface, less is more: another symbol for the brain to interpret can sometimes mean info overload. If we end up with an optional column of user-supplied form cycle symbols such as Bill suggests, and some people choose not to put in the effort to mark pacelines + O (+), are those people missing very much if they still have the above described colour and markup system?

Keeping in mind that the whole point of this exercise is to help clarify which line or lines best represent what the horse will likely do today, given the entire context of its history. (BTW, next release optionally shows as many PP lines for a horse as you happen to have on file.)

All comments appreciated.

Ted

[noddub62]

Good points Ted.

Let's not use sight of the KISS theory or application though. I remember that in one of the follow ups there was an article about too much info. Being able to customize the screens and other settings would solve the too much data problem, at least for me.

But on the other hand Bill's suggestions, as well as others, would be a great teaching tool for newbies and a good refresher for some of us oldies. I'm just glad I don't have your job and figure it all out.

Thanks for all of your help,

Bud

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

All comments appreciated.

Ted

Ted,
As you know, I am not an RDSS user and for that reason I am not as familiar with your program as others who are users. I get to see parts of it from time to time when someone posts screen shots, but when it comes to “color” I think I have an understanding of what the colors are and what they represent.

This is a subject that I could go on and on about, but I’m sure you don’t want to get involved in that. But I do want to say that this is a subject that really opens up things to what boils down to “a matter of opinion”.

There is a lot to discuss here and I’m not going to try and cover all of it in one shot, but here are just a couple of thoughts. One note before I begin, I am showing running position and beaten lengths only, as becoming involved with “pace times” and “final times” only adds to the problem.

Is there any scenario where a horse finishes in the money where the line should not be considered a 'good line'?
Suppose you have a running line that looks like this?
10-11.0, 6-9.0, 4-8.0, 2-10.0
The horse finished “in the money”, in fact, the horse finished second. This line would get color, but it is a “good race”? And suppose the horse finished 3rd rather than second? It would still get color, but when you look at it, is it really a good race?

Is there any scenario where the horse finishes worse than 3rd where the line should still be considered 'good'?
10-11.0 6-9.0 4-4.5 4-1.0
This horse finished “out of the money” and does not get color, but which race is the better race, this one or the one where the horse finished 2-10.0?

- finish out of the money but in the top half of field + 1
Suppose you have a horse that was in a field of 10 horses and its’ running line looks like this:
5-8 5-7.5 5-7.0 5-6.0
The horse finished in the top half of the field, but does it deserve a “+” of ANY kind?
Here is a horse that is coming out of a 12 horse field:
6-5.0 4-1.0 5-3.0 6-5.0
Is this the same as the horse coming out of the 10 horse field above? It finished in the top half of the field, right? In my opinion, this is a much better race even if the horse finished 7th and not in the top half of the field. This horse was within 1 length of the leader at the second call and I would think there is a “real” chance for improvement off this line, whereas I do not think the same thing for the horse coming out of the 10 horse field above. Perhaps this horse should get some type of “+” even if it did not finish in the top half of the field.

Here is another example:
7-8.0 5-5.0 3-2.0 2-1.0
Is there ANYONE who would not give this horse a “+”? Of course not, but now let’s take a look at the opposite of this line.

1-1.0 2-2.0 5-5.0 7-8.0
Is there ANYONE that would give this horse a “+”? I doubt it, yet it is basically the same thing. The differences are these:
The first horse is a “closer” and the second horse an “early” horse. When you take each race on its’ own merits, based on the style of each horse, are not BOTH of these races “+” races?
Does one horse get “extra credit” simply because it is a closer and runs its’ race late, whereas the other horse gets "penalized" (so to speak) because it ran its’ race early?
I posted the results of 42,550 WINNERS from more than 45 tracks around the country on all surfaces and at all distances from 4.5 furlongs to 2 miles that showed almost half of them were 1st or 2nd at the first call. Think about that. There are only two conditions to that. The horse has to be either 1st or 2nd at the first call. It takes every other possible scenario to make up the other half. Don't you think horses that demonstrate that ability should get some type of "+" even if they do not finish "in the money"?

[Bill V.]

Ted that all sound peachy keen
but now again you seem to be getting involved in what Ted Cravin thinks is
a good or bad or something in the middle line If people want that thats your right to do it

I think again, and sorry to repeat my point
This is my same argument as stated earlier Why is the projected pace total basic user choce
Siimple clean and clear. What makes this step different?

Also one part of the method Howard Sartin urged his clients
to do with the notations is looking for the 80 speed rating at todays track.

A 80 or better DRF speed rating or a figure relivent to the contenders in each
race. for instance at Woodland there might not be any 80's in the race but a 75 will do

The 80 speed rating at todays SAME Track in what appears to be a poor
race will warrant the (+) rating regardless of position and beaten lenghts
up to 9. BL over 9 are entersd as 9
Now the trick is what equals an 80 drf number to the ESR or Equalized normalizes adjusted Sartin numbers ?

Thanks
Bill

[raceman5]

like to keep things simple i consider a good race where a horse is less than 6 l behind at he half and fin beaten no more than 5 lengths.

Bob

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Ted that all sound peachy keen
but now again you seem to be getting involved in what Ted Cravin thinks is
a good or bad or something in the middle line If people want that thats your right to do it

Originally Posted by Bill V.

I think again, and sorry to repeat my point
This is my same argument as stated earlier Why is the projected pace total basic user choce
Siimple clean and clear. What makes this step different?

Because that's as far as I got. Give me some time...I'll get the program to suggest a Projected Pace (which you can override, or switch off). If Randy Kovach could do it for Jim Bradshaw, so can I.

Again, sounds like we are in agreement: you want user choice to designate good, bad and good within bad races - and (if I can implement such a feature), user-choice will indeed be the default.

Cheers,

Ted